No, it isn't. Lowry will make an average salary of ~$5.8M per season during the three guaranteed years on the deal. Then, if the Rockets exercise the team option, he'd make ~$6.75M in the fourth year. By definition, 5.8 is closer to 6 than it is to 5. Just saying. (That said, I love Lowry and would love to have him back. This will be VERY interesting to see if the team matches and risks having less salary cap flexibility next summer, when Lowry's cap number will be $5.8M and he can't be traded without his consent until after most of the free agent activity is done.) EDIT: Ah! So, you finally honed your math skills, The Cat, and edited your post! Good for you. :grin:
It is to me. You don't play 48 mins and those stats don't take in fatigue. Just because a player averages 4 ppg and 4rebs in 12 mins, doesn't mean he's going to avg 12 and 12 in 36 mins. Guys are effective just for the time they're out there and can't be expanded based on minutes.
This is an easy decision. You absolutely have to match. First, Lowry is not just some backup as others have tried to characterize him. He is probably the best backup PG in the league, and can start for most teams in the NBA. He's not only a baller on the court, but he brings all of the intangibles to the table. Secondly, at the least you match so you don't let a very valuable asset walk for nothing in return. This deal is not a salary cap killer and can easily be turned around at the deadline this year or next for a larger piece to the puzzle. Lastly, you never know what will happen with the injury bug this season. I'm not wishing for Brooks to suffer any kind of injury, but as we've seen with Yao's absence, not having a serviceable backup can hurt you severely.
Following Martin's acquisition, Lowry's minutes per game were 22.2 in March and 24.9 in April - virtually unchanged from before and level with Landry's average over his first two years in the league. That said, the Landry comparison had more to do with the situation. People knew he wouldn't be happy in Houston long-term with Scola entrenched as the starter. There were also long-term concerns over his knee. I don't think most people looked at Landry as a long-term option, just like Lowry may not be in the long-term plan once Brooks' extension kicks in. But he's simply too much of an asset to let walk for zero if the deal makes sense - which it does.
You said you didn't think he would even get 4 and he gets offered almost 6. I guess you won't be patting yourself on the back? :grin:
With the "closer to $5 mil", I meant in the first year of the deal, since I had noted a couple of posters referring to potential luxury tax implications next year. But yeah, I didn't phrase it correctly (just rolled out of bed) so I gave up on that angle for the moment. :grin:
Isn't that when martin got hurt though? I know what you're saying about assets and stuff, but thats alot of money for a non starter and non tradeable player for a year. His best production also came when he played with brooks in the backcourt vs without him.
It is actually pretty simple. 1) Match the contract immediately. No need to play games with a completely screwed Cleveland team. If Morey does not match then his "bluff" has been called. He clearly said he would match any offer and this one is within reason. 2) If you don't like the "dollars" to this deal, you wait until the trade deadline to deal him. I'm sure the Cavs will be happy to do a trade as would several other teams in desperate need of a point guard. 3) Aaron Brooks gets injured, it's bye bye season. 4) I'm sure Morey has seen what we've all seen from the Summer League PGs... If that doesn't scare you... 5) Several people have mentioned about Lowry's defense. That alone is worth the contract. I compare him with a Shane Battier value when it comes to defense, looking to pass, and high BB IQ. Shane makes 7-8 mil, Lowry making the same as Ariza should be a no brainer. 6) You can sign him and Scola for 20 million a year and they could still do it because they are restricted. However, we only have ONE MLE to spend. If you allow Lowry to leave, you still only have 5.6 MIL or so to find his replacement AND YOUR BACKUP CENTER! The moral of the story is you match, without question! Anyone thinking otherwise has no understanding of the market and inflation. Lowry is better than ANY OTHER PG available in the market (in my opinion). I'm tired of hearing "we can go get Chris Paul". That could happen but right now it's a pipe dream. "Well we can trade Aaron Brooks later" says others... Only if it's going to bring you a 20 ppg scorer in return. Could you list those guys for me and tell me which are available via trade? The odds are still long. Sign Lowry... as soon as today. Show the other teams that if you offer Scola a big contract, we're going to match. Tell them "You are not taking our assets!"
Feigen said he spoke to some people, and the fourth year may not be a team option. It could be a straight 4-year deal.
If I recall, I thought I said that he could expect an offer in the $4-5M range. Yes, in a hypothetical salary cap calculation, I threw out $4M as a number for him. But I don't recall ever saying that Lowry would not get more than $4M. (Pat, pat, pat. Pat, pat, pat.)
Uh, if you haven't noticed, Kevin Martin has a tendency to miss some games over his career. He's also not going to play 48 minutes per when he does play, so you still have some opportunity for the Lowry/Brooks combo.
True, the numbers may put the starting salary at $5.36M or so. But I honestly think that Les and Morey care less about paying an extra million in luxury tax than they care about having a million less in cap flexibility. THAT is the key, in my mind.
ROFL @ Morey. Now we're seeing the culmination of his "grand strategy." Collect a bunch of cheap, undervalued roleplayers while having mediocre regular season and playoff performance. Passively hold on to them and don't get any impact players to put around them. Continue to passively hold onto them until they become slightly overpaid roleplayers. Great job turning the rockets from the perennial 5th seed into a contender.
Are you going to make me use my search feature? :grin: . Its all good though and the projected cap being 52m vs 58 did open up some new money. That said, we had this discussion the other day about morey and les talking about matching. I guess we will see if its just lip service/p.r.
All very valid points, especially the last tidbit about helping reduce competitiveness of Scola's potential contract. Still, it overlooks the fact that $6 million for a backup PG is a LOT of money, and could seriously hamper the team's ability to "rebuild" if that is a path that ultimately needs to be taken. If Yao doesn't return to form, or gets injured again, or even with a healthy, full to form Yao the team just doesn't work (maybe squeeks into the playoffs), and you decide to take a Supersonic/Thunder or Kings rebuild approach, $6 million for Kyle Lowry isn't a contract you want to have. Still, I agree with your sentiments, and think you match.
NOTE TO ALL THOSE SAYING THAT THE ROCKETS CAN SIMPLY MATCH AND THEN TRADE KYLE LOWRY LATER: (1) Lowry cannot be traded for one full year (until July 13, 2011) without his consent. So that will make trades difficult. (2) Lowry cannot be traded for one full year to Cleveland. Period. (3) Lowry will be a BYC player, so trades will be difficult from a salary cap standpoint, even if he consents. (4) Unless Lowry has a BETTER season next season than he had last year, few teams are going to want to trade for his contract. Yes, he's young. But that is why he got that offer from the Cavs. Teams have a higher trajectory for his career because of his youth. If he does not show marked improvement from year to year, teams have less incentive to want him long-term. And if Feigen's reports are true that the fourth year (at around $6.75M) may be fully guaranteed, all of sudden Lowry may become just a pretty good player on a bloated contract that cannot be moved unless packaged with a more attractive asset. Sorry to be a bummer. But it's the truth.
Yeah, i was thinking that too. I think it would open the door for cleveland to trade williams who would fit pretty good with a team like sacramento
That's where you and I differ... I honestly doubt the Rockets are as intently focused on cap flexibility next summer as you do. It's not that I don't understand your case, but I think there are too many options before then for that to be a high probability. For one thing, as Morey said in Yoyo's interview, it's a balancing act between his 3-5 year plan and Adelman's more near-term plan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rockets offered a two-year deal to a Brad Miller if that's what it takes to get him and make Rick comfortable, for example. I also think the Rockets have too many young assets to reasonably make it to next summer without making a significant swap. Teams are still very much struggling financially. While it may not happen this summer, I think this is a comparable situation to the McGrady contract and its potential cap flexibility - I think there's a very good chance you acquire your "All-Star talent" in season and closer to the deadline. Expirings like Jeffries and Battier will become closer in value to the cap space and trade exceptions of this summer because teams will only have two months of their deals to pay. Not to mention that teams are generally more willing to deal stars (summer free agents not withstanding) midseason when their playoff hopes are already shot. There's also some risk with not extending your own expiring players prior to FA, all for the potential to have flexibility. Perhaps even more daunting, the 2011 FA class simply isn't that strong. Again, that's not to say there's no scenario where cap flexibility next summer could benefit the Rockets. It absolutely could. But there are so many potential "outs" before then that the percentage is low. imo, it's not nearly high enough of a probability to risk letting an asset like Kyle walk for nothing in return.
Cat, you've been here awhiel and probably a rockets fan for awhile also, what gives you the idea les will pay the lux tax and lose flexibility for lowry?
